Your analogy is so contrived its ridiculous, because you are starting in such complex situations utilizing items and symbols and transcendent
artifacts and concepts. I am making statements about absolutes, about the totality of totality, about all the substance/material energy that exists
in the largest most total regard of reality. I am speaking about the most fundamental absolute truths. Your analogy uses concepts of existing in
time as complex systems of material, which have knowledge of how to use number systems in relation to perceptions of future times, and abstractions
such as negatives.

I do hope you attempt to answer my bowling ball graviton question.

First only a fool believes in absolutes. You think you have the rules
figured out you dont. Your making an rudimentary observation yes everything has a beginning. There is always a cause and effect though we're not sure
they have to be in order. You have droan on an on Im trying to point out to you just because you can't fathom how something is created doesn't mean
it Can't be. Your sole argument is well something has to be there there's something everywhere it's called energy. With this matter can pop into
existence.

Your analogy, if it was attempting to argue amidst my 'something and nothing' statements, yes, is much more contrived and convoluted, then the
purity of the absolutely truest statement that can be made by any intellect at any point in time, the most obvious absolute truth that can be stated
that all other knowledge then flows from, is what I stated, and you stated you had a problem with, and then to express why you had a problem, you did
not attempt to argue from the ultimate vantage point I was in and stating from, you attempted to use complex orientations of minor but major aspects
of tiny parts of the whole, wherein I was only speaking about the nature of the absolute whole, and its unavoidable relationship to the lack of
something, or nothing.

In what you know of graviton theory; We drop a bowling ball off of a skyscraper, according to what you know, is it proposed that, the bowling ball
falls, because graviton particles push and/or pull it down?

There is a difference between two particles of something which exist 1 inch apart

And two particles of something which exist 1 mile apart

Therefore the fact that 'not something' exists between them

Is a relevant fact

But nothing cannot itself do anything to something

Because it is nothing

Nothing cannot do anything

Nothing is nothing

If you have details and qualities of nothing

You do not have details and qualities of nothing

unless those details and qualities are only distances of nothing

and nothing more.

I am right.

Math is language.

Reality is language.

Reality is physical logic/reason.

Besides, minds, which transcend pure determinism of physical reality,

by utilizing systems of symbolic simulation.

Reality can only escape determinism, by creating systems which transcend determinism, which requires grouping groups of materials as symbols, and then
computing those symbols, to create results, which are not determined strictly by the nature of the physical materials reacting to their existence
amongst an environment. Thus the nature of the mind.

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, you won't suddenly start being correct. You'd do well to preface your comments with 'I think that',
or something along those lines. Philosophy is not science. Linguistic manipulation to try to force the universe to look the way you want it to will
not work.

2 things:
1) There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for insults or name calling. This is a friendly forum, and I'm sure I speak for others here as well when
I ask that you help us to keep it that way.
2) If you're going to disparage the intelligence of someone who has kindly and patiently answered your questions, even the ones that were just one
question asked 10 or 20 ways, I may serve you to start citing some evidence to start backing your claims up. These fine people have done that in
abundance.

Take one line I said, and express in what way it is incorrect. If you need to take more than one line at a time, do so. I will prove you wrong. I
am right. The way in which your mind computes the symbols it stores in its memory is false. I can prove so, if you attempt to prove my correctness
wrong.

Although it has not been summarized in one 'insulting word' (must the truth be considered an insult?) the way I have been treated is far more
insulting then any one word insults that have ever been created and linked together.

Although it has not been summarized in one 'insulting word' (must the truth be considered an insult?) the way I have been treated is far more
insulting then any one word insults that have ever been created and linked together.

Well, I certainly hope you don't think I am trying to be insulting towards you. I'm only disagreeing with you. Discussion and debate are one of the
cornerstones of science. And the only reason I am debating you now is because you seem to be presenting your ideas as absolutes, and dismissing any
possibly that you could be incorrect. Because describing the universe in absolutes, and saying you can prove my cognitive symbology wrong, is
philosophy.
Ok, you make statements like 'something is something, that which is not nothing', and attempt to divide everything in to neat little catagories that
you are comfortable with, while using generalities to 'prove' that you are correct. You asked me to quote anything you've said that is incorrect.
Ok. "You are confused." That is entirely incorrect. And how exactly do you even begin to think you know how my mind "computes the symbols it stores
in its memory", or claim to know that it is false? I would love for you to take a swing at that one.

Ok, you make statements like 'something is something, that which is not nothing', and attempt to divide everything in to neat little catagories that
you are comfortable with, while using generalities to 'prove' that you are correct.

If you are honest with your self, do you not see that you have shied away from attempting to discuss any of the actual content of my statements? What
does this say about our exchange, and your confidence, that the entire thing I am concerned with, the entire point of all my words, is ignored by you,
in exchange for what you may think is a cute and clever highlighting of a petty trifle. You quote something I did say here, which is part of the
essence of what I have been saying, which you seem to be scared to agree with, yet this is not what you want to discuss, now that we all have
attention and you have the chance to attempt to say why you do not agree with my statement. You are not giving reason.

You asked me to quote anything you've said that is incorrect. Ok. "You are confused." That is entirely incorrect. And how exactly do you even begin
to think you know how my mind "computes the symbols it stores in its memory", or claim to know that it is false? I would love for you to take a
swing at that one.

I stated statements which I state are correct.

I require someone who does not believe the statements are correct, to state a reason as to why the statement itself is not correct. The statements
themselves, not an attack on your or my feelings, or our relationship with science and consumerism and authority. The statements are there. Use
statements that you can create, that are the reasons as to why the statements I have stated cannot be true, and/or are not true.

Because you have created statements, which are able to be interpreted, as believing that statements I have stated are incorrect; Is the reason I said
your thinking is false, because that is false thinking, because you did not attempt to state reasons as to why my statements are incorrect, you only
stated that they are, because I know they are correct and can prove it, I know that your mind computed the data within itself, incorrectly and/or the
symbolic data in your mind is in and of itself incorrect, as in not relating to reality, but a purely inventive, original creation of a mixture of
elements of reality, in a novel way, which is the subjective objectivity of your mind, but which does not accurately equal reality, of course not to
scale, but not scalable.

Ok, you make statements like 'something is something, that which is not nothing', and attempt to divide everything in to neat little catagories that
you are comfortable with, while using generalities to 'prove' that you are correct.

If you are honest with your self, do you not see that you have shied away from attempting to discuss any of the actual content of my statements? What
does this say about our exchange, and your confidence, that the entire thing I am concerned with, the entire point of all my words, is ignored by you,
in exchange for what you may think is a cute and clever highlighting of a petty trifle. You quote something I did say here, which is part of the
essence of what I have been saying, which you seem to be scared to agree with, yet this is not what you want to discuss, now that we all have
attention and you have the chance to attempt to say why you do not agree with my statement. You are not giving reason.

You asked me to quote anything you've said that is incorrect. Ok. "You are confused." That is entirely incorrect. And how exactly do you even begin to
think you know how my mind "computes the symbols it stores in its memory", or claim to know that it is false? I would love for you to take a swing at
that one.

I stated statements which I state are correct.

I require someone who does not believe the statements are correct, to state a reason as to why the statement itself is not correct. The statements
themselves, not an attack on your or my feelings, or our relationship with science and consumerism and authority. The statements are there. Use
statements that you can create, that are the reasons as to why the statements I have stated cannot be true, and/or are not true.

Because you have created statements, which are able to be interpreted, as believing that statements I have stated are incorrect; Is the reason I said
your thinking is false, because that is false thinking, because you did not attempt to state reasons as to why my statements are incorrect, you only
stated that they are, because I know they are correct and can prove it, I know that your mind computed the data within itself, incorrectly and/or the
symbolic data in your mind is in and of itself incorrect, as in not relating to reality, but a purely inventive, original creation of a mixture of
elements of reality, in a novel way, which is the subjective objectivity of your mind, but which does not accurately equal reality, of course not to
scale, but not scalable.

You have been playing word games because you refuse to take the time to learn nit even sure why you bother since you think you have it all figured out
and tell us where wrong.That's the main reason I Havnt even gone into spin with you. This would help you understand magnetic fields problem is I have
to spend 2 or 3 posts explaining spin just so I can tell you about how it creates a magnetic field.With this you also learn about monopoles everything
in the universe is controlled by spin. Including why matter can't occupy the same space. Every question you ask involves spin. Once you realize
electrons spin all the time it should start to make sense. They don't vibrate like I've seen you say.

The spin creates a magnetic field In a magnet or a copper wire. But now the fun part ot can only have two orientations in space.once you understand
that we can move on to quarks they make up protons. And like electrons carry a charge.Here is where you need to understand spin and charges. For
example a proton 2 up quarks and a down quark. Looks like this : 2/3 + 2/3 - 1/3 = 3/3 = 1 meaning our proton has a positive charge of 1. The neutron
is a combination of two down quarks and one up quark . Looks like this 1/3 + 1/3 - 2/3 = 0 meaning the charges cancelled out to zero. 99.99 percent of
matter is quarks the rest is the electrons. ALL MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE IS BUILT FROM A SMALL NUMBER OF FUNDAMENTAL SPIN 1/2 PARTICLES. ALL FORCES ARE
MEDIATED BY PARTICLES WHICH HAVE INTEGRAL SPIN 0 1 or 2. Graviton are expected to be spin 2 if it exists. Most others are 1

Spin is the main difference between 'force-particles' and 'matter-particles. Spin 1/2 particles have this weird symmetry that one full turn brings
them not back into the same state but into minus that state and only a second full turn brings them back to the state they had initially. In other
words spinning it 360 degrees give you an opisit charge. Spin it 720 degrees and your back where you started. Particles with integral spin behave in a
way which is called 'symmetric'. This is why you have heard us use the term breaking symmetry where talking about spin.

I'll stop here because any further and I have to go into math and you need to know physics. But everything you see is caused by spin from fields to
matter itself. EVER principle in Physics is based on spin from for example the PaulI exclusionary principle. The reason why barionic matter can't
occupy the same place spin. Spins create charges and these charges attract or repel depending on their number. This is a huge general overview to
truly undersrand you need to do some homework.

What didnt you understand about me saying that I spent 3 or more years spending a lot of time during that time obsessively reading and listening to
lectures about the history of physics and the history of modern physics and all the concepts related. You think the means I am not familiar with the
concepts? You think that means I have no power to think of the concepts? You think if I come across concepts that I can critique, that I cannot
critique them? Do you think I am not a genius? I will respond to the edited portion of your above post in a bit.

I did not gain interest in the realm of physics to merely absorb the information as it is into myself.

If everyone only merely absorbed the information that exists into themselves, there would be no progression.

I am a progressive, I am a creator of novelty and progression, I am an advancer and evolver.

I am not concerned with absorbing all that exists to sit quietly and smile.

I am only concerned with absorbing all that exists (as in the state of physics knowledge) to think about what about the state of physics knowledge,
might be incorrect, what about it is still unknown, how to think about what is unknown to try and aim towards directions of knowing.

I am not a hardrive. Although the sacred mode of memory is magnificent, necessary, splendid and lovely, I have dedicated my self to cultivating my
RAM. My imagination. My mode of creativity. Einstein was an artist. Well, a philosopher. (In my lexicon, Philosophy = thought/thinking, it is
impossible to be a human and to not be a philosopher. Truth exists. Scientists and philosophers, are not inventing truth, they are trying to
recreate in their minds what exists. The process of science is more a process of cleaning up a mess, then of creating art. Everything is determined
but mind (and mind like systems), mind uses its non determination or free will, to access potential. Such as the potential to contain in the mind,
truths about reality, that are not determinately given to the mind. The artistry of philosophy and science is then that, the exploration of the
realm of potential, to conclude what must be done to corner the truth, what must the mind do amidst its environment, so that in some future state of
its existence, it will have more information about the nature of true reality, then it has at the moment, this is history, we are ever in the middle
of it and on the cutting edge.)

You have shown no understanding of the concepts involved. We have given you entire lectures and you just go off track. Your problem simple you want
to look at the universe as being set with basic laws that you think the universe works by.You want to be able to say this us the rules and this is the
outcome. Problem is the universe has shown us it is very much random and it will do what ever it wants regardless of if we humans like it or thinks
it's logical. In particle physics everything you think you know is wrong. Hardest thing students have in their 1st year is to let go of what they
believe to be true and go with what the experiment tells us.

Everything that can be written with the squiggly line symbols of math, can be written with the squiggly line symbols of words.

I spent 3 years or more learning history of physics and the history of modern physics,

with the only intent of attempting to dig and enlighten what is not yet known about the nature of reality,

or what may be incorrectly thought is truth.

I am only on team Truth.

I am not looking to download skills into my brain,

or looking to get a job in physics, or looking to build things,

or looking to teach.

I am only looking for truth.

I am only looking to attempt to correct any errors in the thinking of the humans on earth.

I care more about the totality of humanity,

and how perfectly it comprehends reality and the universe, than anything else.

I care more about the totality of humanity and how perfectly it comprehends reality and the universe, than medals,

authority figures, the amount of money people and universities have, the amount and sophistication of toys people can build.

I am good and right. I am justified and worthy.

I mentioned earlier that it might be helpful to cite some sources for what you claim it correct. And you say that you spent 2 years learn physics to
correct the wrong ways we think of it. Ok. Fine. But you cannot insist you are correct without providing some proof. I would very much like to see
some, honestly. And not just another rambling philosophical post about the nature of 'not nothing'. Equations, experimentation or observation that
agrees with your views, something. You can not claim imagination is truth.

But, let's discuss some of your principles of reality, in the spirit of fairness. Ok, I agree that something is indeed something, and that nothing is
the absence of something. I also agree that everything in reality is made of one variety of something or another. For example, atoms. Their
somethings are electrons, protons, and neutrons. Two of those are composed of quarks. The other, electrons, are a fundamental particle in and of
themselves. These electrons are the particles which propagate the electromagnetic force.
I'm fairly sure we are still in agreement at this point, correct?

According to modern physics best understanding of reality, and the aspect of reality we term 'gravity';

What physically is forcing the ball to move?

Does EM radiation (which from now on for convenience sake I will refer to as; light) 'created' 'in/as' the sun move as particles from the location
of the suns body, to the location of the earths body? As if the sun was 'throwing baseballs towards earth', as an analogy, to the sun 'throwing
light towards earth'?

According to modern physics best understanding of reality, and the aspect of reality we term 'gravity';

What physically is forcing the ball to move?

Does EM radiation (which from now on for convenience sake I will refer to as; light) 'created' 'in/as' the sun move as particles from the location of
the suns body, to the location of the earths body? As if the sun was 'throwing baseballs towards earth', as an analogy, to the sun 'throwing light
towards earth'?

Ok, I have to admit that the phrasing of the second part of your question is a bit confusing, but let's go ahead and see where we can get with this.
I'll give you my answer, then you give me yours and we can see if they differ.
The bowling ball is acting on potential energy, due to the gravitational field of the Earth exerting a constant pull on it. The forces acting upon it
are momentum energy and gravity. Now, I suspect that this answer won't satisfy you, so you can elaborate on your question in your response.
Photons are emitting by excited electrons moving between energy states. The direction in which any given photon moves is determined by the local
charge field of the electron. So, as they are generated in the Sun's core, and spend around 10,000 years bouncing off protons and such, they work
their way to the surface and travel in whatever direction the ended up leaving the core in. Until they are absorbed or reflected. But no, they are not
baseballs. Baseballs are mostly composed of baryonic matter. Photons are not. They are most likely massless. (Current experiments have set an upper
limit for the mass of a photon, but have not shown them to have mass. We just know that if they do, it is less than the limits of that our equipment
can detect. And it would be so small as to be negligible in pretty much every significant way.)
Ok, I know that you are actually asking about the nature of the photon itself, as well as its creation and direction of travel. Photons are quanta of
energy. They have properties of both particles and waves. They travel and act like a wave until interactions with matter collapse their waveform and
they isolate as a single particle. When they are emitting by electrons, they are moving a relativistic speed. Slightly less than 300,000 km/sec.
Passing through matter can slow this speed, but it resumes full speed in a vacuum. As for the reason behind the constant speed in a vacuum, even after
being slowed by matter, I do not have a solid explanation. I'm not a physicist.
But the collapse from wave to particle is evident in the fact that an electron can absorb a photon. Electrons are many times smaller than any
wavelength of light. This is why we use electron microscopy. Electrons can provide a resolution that light cannot. But if light were purely waves, the
photon would only lose a small amount of energy when it encountered an electron. Much like a wave at the shore of the ocean does not cease to exist
because part of it hits the piles supporting a pier, or a person standing in the water.

According to modern physics best understanding of reality, and the aspect of reality we term 'gravity';

What physically is forcing the ball to move?

Does EM radiation (which from now on for convenience sake I will refer to as; light) 'created' 'in/as' the sun move as particles from the location of
the suns body, to the location of the earths body? As if the sun was 'throwing baseballs towards earth', as an analogy, to the sun 'throwing light
towards earth'?

It sounds like you're asking about coronal mass ejections (CMEs)? Here's a paper that takes into account the gravitational force of the Sun (escape
velocity) and the Earth. Hope I didn't misinterpret your question.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.